Some Thoughts On The EU's Latest $5 Billion Google Antitrust Fine

from the what's-best-for-innovation? dept

As was widely expected, earlier today, the EU Commission brought down its latest antitrust fine against Google, this time for an eye-popping $5 billion. The number gets the attention, but it's worth looking at the underlying details here. This was the result of a two year investigation, specifically into certain bundling practices that Google used concerning Android and some of its apps. When Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager first announced the investigation in April of 2016, she more or less explained where they were headed:

The Commission's preliminary view is that Google has implemented a strategy on mobile devices to preserve and strengthen its dominance in general internet search. First, the practices mean that Google Search is pre-installed and set as the default, or exclusive, search service on most Android devices sold in Europe. Second, the practices appear to close off ways for rival search engines to access the market, via competing mobile browsers and operating systems. In addition, they also seem to harm consumers by stifling competition and restricting innovation in the wider mobile space.

And... that's more or less exactly what the Commission found in today's announcement.

Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: "Today, mobile internet makes up more than half of global internet traffic. It has changed the lives of millions of Europeans. Our case is about three types of restrictions that Google has imposed on Android device manufacturers and network operators to ensure that traffic on Android devices goes to the Google search engine. In this way, Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance of its search engine. These practices have denied rivals the chance to innovate and compete on the merits. They have denied European consumers the benefits of effective competition in the important mobile sphere. This is illegal under EU antitrust rules."

In particular, Google:

• has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
• made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and
• has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

I've been critical of some antitrust activity and supportive of others over the years, and I think it's important to take a step back and look at whether or not this actually will likely lead to greater innovation -- no matter what the reasoning is (and, it should be noted, many European officials have made it clear they think EU antitrust activities should be used to harm American companies because they're big and American, rather than for any principled reason concerning competition or innovation). And, of course, there are some people who simply hate big tech companies and will cheer on any attack on them whether it's for good or bad reasons.

Just to set some signposts for the discussion: I believe, and have argued strongly over the years, that competition is the key to innovation and innovation is an important component of making everyone's lives better. You are free to disagree with those claims, but then we're having a very different discussion. This is the lens through which I view this entire discussion. Based on that, antitrust activities are useful when they are used to stop truly harmful monopolistic practices that hold back competition and innovation. But, antitrust activities for other reasons, or which don't seem likely to result in greater competition and innovation tend to be wasteful and silly. So... where does this latest fine from the EU come down?

As I noted when the investigation was first announced, it seemed that only one of the three "prongs" of the investigation really seemed like a big issue: the preventing manufacturers from selling phones with alternative versions of Android. There is a non-nefarious reason why Google might want this -- because if those non-Google Android versions are poorly done, it could confuse people and reflect poorly on Google... but this condition could clearly be used to stifle competition and innovation in the space. There's a reasonable argument that this was always a step too far, and Google never should have gone down that path in the first place.

The other reasons given for the fine remain... a lot less compelling. First, there's the issue of tying Google search and Chrome to offering Google Play as a pre-installed app. First off, the EU admits (oddly) that this is unfair because everyone expects the Google Play store to be pre-installed:

As part of the Commission investigation, device manufacturers confirmed that the Play Store is a "must-have" app, as users expect to find it pre-installed on their devices (not least because they cannot lawfully download it themselves).

Okay, fair enough. But you know what that very same Play Store lets you do? Download other browsers and search apps. I don't use Chrome on my phone (I use Firefox, Firefox Focus -- which is fantastic, or Brave). I've even used alternative app stores in the past, but eventually shifted back to the Play Store, mainly because Google seemed to do a much better job of stopping dangerous or crappy apps from getting on my phone. And, as Google has suggested, part of the reason for requiring Chrome to be installed is that tons of other apps actually use Chrome components as part of how they work. So not installing Chrome with the Play Store would actually lead to a lot of apps not working properly.

The other issue for which Google was dinged was the payments to device manufacturers to make Google search the "exclusive" pre-installed search on those devices. Now, I could totally see a valid antitrust complaint on this point if Google were forcing manufacturers into this agreement against their will, and were able to force them to do so. But... here it's about Google doing a business deal to pay manufacturers to be the exclusive. As we pointed out at the beginning of the investigation, how is that different than when Google paid Mozilla to be the default search engine in Firefox? Then Microsoft outbid Google and Bing became the default.

Either way, on this issue, Google stopped doing this practice entirely in 2014.

Google says it's going to appeal this decision, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai is hinting that if the ruling is upheld, Google may no longer be able to offer Android for free in the EU. Google also argues that the way its designed its Android business has created a tremendous amount of choice -- including providing smart phone / tablet / other devices that are available at price points and in markets where Google's main competitor in this space, Apple, refuses to make any real offerings. And that's a fairly compelling point.

The bigger question, again, though is what will be the real impact on innovation for end users of all of this. I'm not convinced (should this hold up) that it will have much of an impact either way. I doubt making any of the required changes will really harm Google that much (as noted, in at least one case, it already gave up the practice four years ago). But I also don't see how any of the required changes really helps competitors or app developers in any significant way. It doesn't make any of them more likely to get more users, or provide a better way for them to get their services out there.

One of the issues with anything having to do with innovation is that it's impossible to envision the "innovation that would have occurred" in the counterfactual scenario in which the supposed antitrust violations never occurred. But looking over these issues, I'm hard pressed to think of how anything would have developed all that differently if Google hadn't done these things in the first place. Perhaps Amazon's Fire devices would have a larger market? Perhaps we'd have seen more innovation with other third parties building out their own versions of Android with their own playstores. But it seems unlikely that it would have materially changed how the search market and browser market developed.

Of course, it should be noted that there is some amount of karma here. Back during the Microsoft antitrust fight, Google stepped up in 2006 to complain to the EU Commission about Microsoft's bundling and default practices. Specifically, Microsoft's browser at the time included a built in search box that defaulted to Microsoft's own search (at the time, called MSN search). And Google didn't like that.

"The market favors open choice for search, and companies should compete for users based on the quality of their search services," said Marissa Mayer, the vice president for search products at Google. "We don't think it's right for Microsoft to just set the default to MSN. We believe users should choose."

And, amusingly, Microsoft's own response to that criticism was nearly identical to Google's today, saying that "the user is in control" and it's easy to change the defaults. So there's absolutely some hypocrisy in how Google has acted through this whole thing.

However, in the end, I'm still hard pressed to see how today's fine will actually change anything in a way that improves innovation and what the public gets to do. Google is competing with lots of companies on a variety of different fronts these days. Earlier this year we had a podcast exploring how companies might disrupt Google, and I don't see how these moves make any of what we discussed any easier at all. Instead, it seems to be fighting the last fight, over mobile UI, rather than the next real competitive and innovative fights on different kinds of services.

Filed Under: android, antitrust, bundling, chrome, competition, eu, innovation, margrethe vestager, monopolies, search, tying
Companies: google

ISPs Are Now Forcing Cord Cutters To Subscribe To TV If They Want To Avoid Usage Caps

from the damned-if-you-do dept

We've noted time and time again how broadband usage caps on fixed-line networks are arbitrary, unnecessary, and harm innovation. They're also a useful weapon against streaming video competitors, and the natural evolution of TV competition. Caps can be used to either punish users who try and cut the cord with higher prices, but they also allow ISPs to exempt their own streaming services from said caps (something currently being done by both Verizon and Comcast), thereby giving these services a distinct and unfair advantage in the market.

But broadband ISPs are now coming up with a new way of attacking cord cutters: forcing them to subscribe to television if they want to avoid usage caps.

Back in January, AT&T announced that the company would be happy to remove usage caps on its wireless network, but only if you subscribe to DirecTV or U-verse TV service. Then last month, AT&T carried this idea over to its fixed-line broadband network, announcing that it would be imposing new usage caps on its broadband users starting May 23. While AT&T says it will generously allow users to pay $30 more per month to avoid usage caps entirely, it also announced that users who subscribe to its TV services will be able to avoid usage caps entirely.

This month, an Oregon company by the name of Bend Broadband followed suit, informing its users that it would be happy to remove its usage caps (ranging from 150 GB to 500 GB), but only if users subscribe to television service. Bend offers up a misleading explanation for why caps are necessary in the first place in a company FAQ:

"The continued migration of Netflix usage from mailed DVD to Internet streaming/download, as well as other data intensive uses of the Internet, are impacting all providers of high-speed Internet service. While we certainly acknowledge and appreciate that content rich services like Netflix make our high-speed offering more valuable to the end user, the volume of data associated with this content drives significant incremental investment in the network and the need to purchase more bandwidth in order to maintain the user experience and this must be funded."

Right, but that's bullshit. U.S. residents already pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world; money that any earnings report will clearly illustrate is more than enough to offset what at this point is only modest network upgrades. As one cable CEO recently noted, most of the heavy investment is over, and the name of the game now is milking these uncompetitive markets for all they're worth until either broadband competition magically sprouts from the ether, or regulators wake up from a deep slumber and shut down the price gouging party.

Usage caps on fixed-line networks are nothing more than rate hikes on uncompetitive markets, and anybody claiming otherwise either has been swindled by a good salesman, or is selling you something themselves.

There's absolutely nothing good about this trend. ISPs are using a lack of competition in the broadband space to impose usage caps. They're then using caps to force subscribers to sign up for TV services they may or may not actually want. It's a mammoth, misleading and anti-competitive abuse of two markets simultaneously, all sold to consumers under the lie that ISPs need even more revenue to keep funding unprecedented investment and innovation. In reality, the entire push may just be one of the largest cons ever perpetrated on consumers in the modern communications era.

Filed Under: broadband, bundling, cord cutting, data caps, isps, tv, tying, usage caps

EU Officially Goes After Google's Android On Antitrust Grounds

from the where's-the-beef? dept

This was widely expected, but the EU Commission, led by Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, has officially announced that it's going after Google over some of its practices concerning Android. This comes just a day after Canadian antitrust officials went in the other direction, finding no evidence that Google's activities stifle competition. The EU has a few specific concerns about Android:

The Commission's preliminary view is that Google has implemented a strategy on mobile devices to preserve and strengthen its dominance in general internet search. First, the practices mean that Google Search is pre-installed and set as the default, or exclusive, search service on most Android devices sold in Europe. Second, the practices appear to close off ways for rival search engines to access the market, via competing mobile browsers and operating systems. In addition, they also seem to harm consumers by stifling competition and restricting innovation in the wider mobile space.

I definitely worry about monopolistic practices by incumbent players crowding out startups and innovation, so I was keen to dig in on the details here, but they seem oddly... lacking. I've noted in the past that the EU tends to view antitrust through a fairly different lens than the US does, and perhaps that's the issue here. This is a broad generalization, but for the most part, the US focuses on whether or not practices harm consumers. The EU tends to focus on whether or not a company is really big. I think the US standard makes a lot more sense.

Let's dig in to the specific complaints raised by the EU, saying each of these practices violated antitrust laws:

requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;

Many people have compared this to the case against Microsoft from the early 2000s, in which it got dinged for making Internet Explorer the default. Of course, a quick retort on that is: where is Internet Explorer in the browser market today? It's basically a non-entity, and it wasn't because of any antitrust penalties (which were basically wrist slaps). And, either way it appears that the issue here with Google is that it requires all of its core services to be bundled together: so if you want to offer the Google Play Store, then you have to also offer the other pieces of the Google app suite so that they work well together. But, of course, this also doesn't stop phone makers or service providers from adding their own apps as well. I now have a bloat-free Android phone running Cyanogenmod, but back when I had a Samsung S4 on Sprint, it came with a ton of bloatware from both Samsung and Sprint (and, frankly, all of it was useless and annoying).

Perhaps there's an issue with making Google search the default, but is anyone actually harmed by having Google's search as the (easily changed) default on an Android phone? It certainly seems like Apple's iOS ecosystem is a lot more restrictive. At least with Google you can route around Google's app store and sideload apps easily or use alternative app stores. I frequently use Amazon's app store, for example.

preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

This is the one prong (out of three) that at least seems worth investigating more. I can understand Google's position -- that if you're offering Google's suite of apps, you need to offer Google's version of Android to make sure everything works together well -- but this seems like an unnecessary condition for Google to include in those agreements. The simple fact is that most manufacturers are likely to want to go with a stock Android anyway, and just pile on their own customizations and bloatware. In most cases, there isn't going to be that much desire for manufacturers to use an Android fork. But, if they do... so what? I don't really understand why Google prevents manufacturers from choosing to offer different flavors of Android, but I'm also not sure that this is an antitrust issue.

giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.

This one probably confuses me the most. This is just a business deal for installing software on phones. For years, Google paid Mozilla to be its default search in Firefox, and then Yahoo outbid it to become the default. That's how business works. Google isn't leveraging its market position here -- it's just doing a deal. The EU claims that its issue is "not with financial incentives in general but with the conditions associated with Google's financial incentives, in particular with the condition that the financial incentive is not paid if any other search provider than Google Search is pre-installed on smart mobile devices." But... isn't that the nature of the deal? If you're doing a business deal to be the exclusive search provider, then, shouldn't you be the exclusive search provider?

It will obviously be worth watching how all of this plays out. The EU has made it clear for a while that it has it in for Google, so if I had to predict, this process won't go well for Google.

Frankly, if I were Google, I probably would have dropped a lot of the exclusivity requirements. I know they're in a race to see who will get access to the most data, but let the apps and services compete and see who wins out. Google's app ecosystem does well because it tends to be pretty good. Google could have avoided at least some of this fight by just trusting its own services to win out, rather than pushing for certain defaults and exclusivities. Some others have made this point as well:

I'm pretty sure Google can survive and come out the winner. The best of its products -- that ones that have the most users -- are excellent. People won't stop using Google Maps just because it isn't preinstalled on their phones. It's among the top 10 most downloaded applications in Apple's App Store because iPhone users often prefer it to Apple's own map software. Chrome is in the top 100 most downloaded apps even though it's impossible to change the default browser in iOS from Apple's Safari without "jailbreaking" the device to untether it from Apple support.

Google's search engine, too, wouldn't be dominant if it didn't index more pages than competitors and produce better results. YouTube is a must-have app, while Google's cloud office services are free, unlike, say, Microsoft's, and they work just as well.

These are great, competitive products. They don't really need the extra push from restrictive deals between Google and phone manufacturers. Google's brand name is strong with those who buy Android phones, and, given a choice, they are likely to prefer Google products rather than spend time researching alternatives. The company may need to spend a bit more on advertising its products in a free-choice situation, but that won't break the bank because the apps are already hugely popular.

But what Google should do, and what the EU should force it to do, are different questions. I'd much prefer that Google take a more open approach to these things, but I'm not convinced that we want bureaucrats deciding for the company exactly what Google's approach on the mobile phone should be.

Filed Under: android, antitrust, bundling, defaults, eu, eu commission, margrethe vestager
Companies: google

Cablevision Files Antitrust Suit Against Viacom For Forced Bundling Of Crappy TV Channels

from the when-big-companies-fight dept

For many, many years there have been disputes between cable TV providers and the TV companies over what channels the cable (and satellite) guys need to provide. The TV companies often "bundle" smaller channels that don't get many viewers along with the popular "must have" channels. Part of their argument is that this allows those smaller channels to exist in the first place, as they'd be economically nonviable without the subsidy from the super popular channels. Of course, the cable/satellite providers (and many consumers) argue that this is waste, pure and simple, and it means higher bills. It appears that Cablevision is finally trying to do something about this, and has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Viacom for forcing it to carry the channels it doesn't like, specifically channels like Palladia, MTV Hits and VH1 Classic. Cablevision has to carry those if it wants the channels that people actually watch, like MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.

Oddly, we can't show you the full lawsuit, because it's been filed under seal. You see that sometimes when it involves contractual disputes, since the terms in the contract are secret. However, it's rather unfortunate that they couldn't file the document with the secret stuff redacted. At this time, we just have Cablevision's side of the story via their press announcement. The key argument is that this is an illegal "tying" arrangement. Of course, just last year we had a ruling in a similar lawsuit, in which cable customers filed a similar suit, which flopped in court.

Cablevision may have a difficult time making this claim succeed as well. As Viacom quickly pointed out in response, the bundling is not "forced." Pay TV companies can choose individual channels without other channels, it's just that the price is higher. So, they argue, the bundling actually leads to discounts. Whether or not anyone actually believes that claim may become a key question in the lawsuit. If I had to do an initial handicapping, though, I'd guess that Viacom wins this one, even if Cablevision can make Viacom (and others) sweat for a bit. In the long run, however, this is still about fighting the last battle. The idea of TV channels is an increasingly obsolete concept. This fight is over the way video content was distributed. Not the way it will be distributed in the future.

Filed Under: antitrust, bundling, cable channels, tying
Companies: cablevision, viacom

Appeals Court: Bundling Cable Channels Together Isn't Anticompetitive

from the and-it's-outdated-anyway dept

Over the years, one topic that seems to engender extremely passionate responses around here is the question of cable TV bundling. People hate bundled cable TV packages -- usually because they hate paying for a bunch of channels they don't want just to get the four channels they do want. I still tend to think this complaint is overstated -- if the cable guys priced things out a la carte, the pricing would basically come to the same thing anyway (the channels you do want would be super expensive, and the ones you don't would be pretty cheap or free with other channels). Either way, the complaint also seems increasingly antiquated in an internet world. More and more TV shows are moving to the web anyway (through both authorized and unauthorized means). While it's certainly not perfect yet, you can create your own a la carte solution for many TV shows/channels.

Still, some folks sued over this bundling, claiming that it was anti-competitive. However, as Eric Goldman alerts us, an appeals court has upheld a lower court decision and outright rejected the idea that bundling is an antitrust issue. The court points out that "tying" arrangements are only illegal if they lead to clear anticompetitive behavior and consumer harm, but that's missing here:

The complaint does not allege that Programmers’ practice of selling “must-have” and low-demand channels in packages excludes other sellers of low-demand channels from the market, or that this practice raises barriers to entry into the programming market. Nor do the plaintiffs allege that the tying arrangement here causes consumers to forego the purchase of substitutes for the tied product.... Nothing in the complaint indicates that the arrangement between the Programmers and Distributors forces Distributors or consumers to forego the purchase of alternative low-demand channels.

The court notes that the only real complaint is that the contract between the parties limits what kinds of offerings can be made by the cable companies, but the court notes that third parties suing over others' contracts that limit some actions "is not sufficient to allege an injury to competition."

I think it's pretty silly that cable companies haven't innovated to the point that a la carte offerings are regularly available. I recognize that the issue here is more about programmers requiring the bundles to get the "must have" channels, so the cable providers are a bit hamstrung, but sooner or later the cable companies need to convince the programmers that lumping stuff together just pisses off consumers, and they might as well offer up an a la carte solution instead.

Filed Under: anti-competitive practices, bundling, cable, television

Google, Too, Chooses Lobbying Over Competing

from the is-that-so-googley? dept

Microsoft's increasing regulatory headache from the European Commission concerns its Internet Explorer browser that comes standard with Windows. We've said before that this investigation is prima facie silly given the vibrant and increasing competition in the browser market, but it looks like things are just going to get worse for Microsoft. First, it was Mozilla deciding to complain that Microsoft was creating an unhealthy browser market by bundling IE with Windows. Now, Google is jumping onto the bandwagon and arguing that Microsoft's policy limits competition and harms innovation.

This is primarily problematic because the browser market is anything but uncompetitive. Firefox has created what is widely considered a better product, and, wouldn't you know it, gained considerable market share around the world (as high as 30% in some regions). More recently, Google introduced its own browser, Chrome, that launched to accolades and much user adoption. By introducing regulators into the browser market, these companies will all be distracted from providing users with the best possible product.

But what's even more confounding is Google's involvement. Obviously the company desires control of most browsers so it can set the defaults in its favor, but it is increasingly obvious that Google should not be bringing regulatory attention to the Internet -- especially when it comes to antitrust questions. Although claims of Google's "monopoly" are as specious as Internet Explorer's, making noise about antitrust is likely to come back and bite Google, especially given the rising number of political enemies they have.

Filed Under: antitrust, browsers, bundling, eu, internet explorer, regulators
Companies: google, microsoft

Disappointing: Mozilla Siding With Bogus EU Antitrust Action Against Microsoft

from the just-go-out-and-compete dept

Last month, it seemed silly that EU regulators were pursuing Microsoft for antitrust violations in the browser market for bundling IE. It was clear that some of the initial complaints had come from Opera -- an also-ran in the browser market. However, it seemed silly because there is vibrant and growing competition in the marketplace. Firefox has continued to grow its market share, and in the past few years we've seen new entrants in the browser market from Apple and Google -- both of whom have established small, but significant footholds.

So, it's especially disappointing to read that the Mozilla Foundation appears to be siding with the regulators, complaining about Microsoft's actions. Obviously, Mozilla is competing with Microsoft in this space, so at a first pass it may seem in their best interests to lobby the EU to punish Microsoft. But it's disingenuous to say the least. Mozilla got where it did because it competed effectively. It built a better, more secure browser that many people made the choice to support over IE. In fact, Firefox's chief architect, apparently unaware of what his "bosses" were cooking up, seems to have recently contradicted the Mozilla Foundation's new position, where he admitted that he couldn't see how anyone with a straight face could claim that Microsoft's ability to bundle created a monopoly, noting that Firefox's success in growing marketshare showed that making yourself "demonstrably better" worked. Oops.

Filed Under: antitrust, browsers, bundling, eu, firefox, internet explorer, regulators
Companies: microsoft, mozilla

EU Regulators Can't Resist: Go After Microsoft For Antitrust Yet Again

from the punching-bag dept

Microsoft is becoming quite the antitrust punching bag over in Europe. After a years long fight concerning antitrust charges in Europe, Microsoft finally gave in and agreed to pay up. So, now the matter is over with, right? No, of course not. EU regulators are back at it, telling Microsoft that the company is probably violating antitrust laws by bundling Microsoft Internet Explorer with Windows. This seems like an odd issue to bring up now as there is increasing competition in the browser market. Firefox's marketshare has continued to climb. Google has entered the market with Chrome. Safari is gaining increasing life (in part due to the iPhone) and there are numerous other upstarts as well. The idea that Microsoft is somehow exerting undue influence on the browser market (a market that, for the most part, involves free software) seems rather odd. It seems to confirm the initial opinion that many had of the original antitrust lawsuit in the EU against Microsoft. It's more about a simple dislike for Microsoft than any actual antitrust violation.

Filed Under: antitrust, browsers, bundling, eu, internet explorer, regulators
Companies: microsoft

Judge Says RIAA Should Be Fined For Bundling File Sharing Lawsuits

from the abusing-the-system dept

Years ago, before the RIAA's decision to sue individual file sharers, the group used to send subpoenas to ISPs asking for IP addresses of users even though no lawsuit had actually been filed. Verizon actually stood up and fought the RIAA on this, eventually winning. In response, the RIAA started filing mass lawsuits, suing multiple "John Does" and then using those lawsuits to get subpoenas to the ISPs. Soon afterwards, a judge noticed that this seemed odd, and told the RIAA it needed to start filing individual lawsuits rather than bundling them all together. Unfortunately, other judges have allowed the "bundled" lawsuits, so the RIAA still files them. However, a magistrate judge in Maine is suggesting that the district court judge fine the RIAA lawyers for the practice, noting that the RIAA shows little explanation for why the lawsuits should be bundled.

Filed Under: bundling, copyright, lawsuits, riaa
Companies: riaa

AT&T: Bundling Is Lame... But You Have To Buy This Other Bundle To See Why

from the you-said-what-now? dept

It's been quite amusing recently to hear AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson's explanations for various AT&T policies lately. First there was that whole thing about how the company wasn't promoting its $10 DSL plan because "people didn't want it" and now we find out that the company that once claimed no one wanted naked DSL (perhaps because the company wouldn't offer it) is now admitting that actually people love naked DSL and hate bundles... except in order to get the "naked DSL" bundle they love so much, you have to bundle the service with a mobile phone. There's nothing wrong with offering bundles, certainly, but it seems reasonable to have a la carte offerings as well. In fact, Stephenson notes that forced bundling "is an old mind-set. We need to get over it." Yet, as Broadband Reports notes at the link above, it's a bit odd that he's saying forced bundling is an old mind-set, when he's promoting the similarly forced bundle -- where it's just mobile service rather than a landline phone service.

Filed Under: bundling, naked dsl, wireless
Companies: at&t